Often my curiosity gets the best of me.  The majority of us agree that the CG doesn't matter, because technically it doesn't.  However I have a NIB Zen on my lap, and while I was staring at a Zen core, imagining the RG and Diff of post drilling numbers, trying to come up with a layout, it occured to me... Despite the Zen core being symmetrical, it's only bilaterally symmetrical, not radially Symmetric.  That means that as you spin the core (drilling angle and therefore INdirectly cg placement) you actually ARE changing the orientation of the core.

To simplify this, a quick glance at the Zen core from top down, and we basically have a triangle'ish shape, right?  So depending on where you place the CG, or your drill angle (which usually wouldn't matter) will directly impact which part of the triangle the thumb is drilled into.  It could either hit on the flat side of the triangle, or directly into the corner of the triangle.
Example: Imagine you want the Pin dead center of your bridge, 1" above your fingers.  Now, spin the ball, the pin to pap and Val would remain constant, but as the CG swings around, it will change which part of the core you hit, therefore result in different core dynamics.

That means, that 2 identical layouts, (pin to pap and val or pin buffer) would likely have 2 completely different post drilling numbers, based on which part of the triangulated core, your fingers and thumb gets drilled into.  Especially for those of us who use interchangeable systems that go ~3 inches into the ball.

Luke's "Everything Zen" video has a half-ball early on, where you can clearly see and visualize what the difference would be of holes going into the flat side or corner of the core.  I have to assume this would be a noticeable different on the ending RG and Diff.

Not enough to drastically alter ball reaction, but enough to change your end goal of a VAL angle or pin buffer adjustment, in either direction.  I guess I don't really have a question or fix, as I don't believe the CG location has any consistent correlation with core orientation, so there's nothing we can do to predict it.

I just thought it was interesting, and definitely throws a wrench into the "CG no matter" mentality, because while technically the literal CG doesn't matter, that's what we use to dictate the drilling angle, which does in fact matter, for symmetrical cores IF they are NOT radially Symmetric.

Thoughts?

No matter how you move the core around the number changes if hitting certain parts  the core or not hitting certain parts of the core are minimal, especially when keeping the pin to pap the same and the val angle the same.

With the football you are changing everything in orientation to drill into the side or into the top of the ball. Even then the biggest affects would be pin to pap and core orientation where the ball would have negative affects because of the ball flaring over holes drilled in the ball etc not the core numbers that are changed by drilling slightly more into the core or not.

CAD software shows no matter how much you move the core around the possibility for changes in the cores numbers from drilling do not change much. Drilling out the core can also lower the core numbers because of the shape of the ball that is being removed vs increasing them which would be less desired by some.

Quote from: ignitebowling on July 21, 2022, 11:05:35 AM

No matter how you move the core around the number changes if hitting certain parts  the core or not hitting certain parts of the core are minimal, especially when keeping the pin to pap the same and the val angle the same.

With the football you are changing everything in orientation to drill into the side or into the top of the ball. Even then the biggest affects would be pin to pap and core orientation where the ball would have negative affects because of the ball flaring over holes drilled in the ball etc not the core numbers that are changed by drilling slightly more into the core or not.

CAD software shows no matter how much you move the core around the possibility for changes in the cores numbers from drilling do not change much. Drilling out the core can also lower the core numbers because of the shape of the ball that is being removed vs increasing them which would be less desired by some.

Uhhh, okay?

I asked what you had the hole depth set at, and if you felt the Zen (hypothetically being a larger core, therefore more core hit by all holes in question) would result in a larger delta between the 2 simulations you provided.

I suppose radical already answered this question, so it's moot.  Even in Symmetrical cores, the drilling angle can potentially result in 6 points of total diff and 11 points of Int diff.  That's a massive difference from a "drill angle" in which previously everyone was assuming had "zero effect" or would "never change" the core orientation.

I just thought it would be interesting to discuss some outliers of bowling cores and drilling concepts.

 Was on my phone and didnt see your previous question.   

"Awesome, thank you for doing that.  Just to cure my curiosity, what did you have finger and thumb depth set at?  And in your personal opinion, given that the Zen Core is one of the biggest cores 900G makes, do you feel it would have resulted in a larger delta in your test?  I'm unfamiliar with the Arson core/line and it's size relative to the Zen Core."

The fingers are at 2" the thumb at 2 3/4" when drilling the thumb to 3.5" the int diff went up .001 and the diff went of .001


Every other core is the next biggest or current biggest. Playing with both sym and asym cores available on blueprint the difference are minimal. The other thing most do not understand is on almost any ball when you drill the fingers or thumb deeper typically the core numbers increase but the results on the lane do not. In many cases it causes the ball to hook less total boards. It shortens the skid phase to get the ball to slow down faster.

Mo lived and died on selling people on increasing core numbers and saying the pin down was bad ect ect when the results are not the case. He believed in max everything which typically equals bad ball reaction. Max weight hole size and depth then post weight holes drilling the thumb max size and depth etc. Most of his stuff against pin down layouts in the later seminars were lies. It said it was comparing a 3.75" pin to pap pin up ball vs a 4" pin to pap pin down ball but the pin down was actually 5" pin to pap. It is sad to do that to try and make you seem right vs telling the truth.

Here is a great Radical video for example of a 4.5" pin up vs 4.5" pin down. Notice the big differences in differential and int differential compared to the lack of big difference on the lanes....except for the high rev bowler. The pin up doesnt come close to the strength of the pin down ball in overall hook etc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0MBB7BUxRI



The other link is to the trial copy of blueprint software from powerhouse. Download and install it and play with all the options you like and test the on lane differences and see what you think.  Before you install the software change the date on your computer to the year 2099 so your 30 day free trial doesnt end so soon

http://blueprintbowling.com/

"Most of his stuff against pin down layouts in the later seminars were lies. It said it was comparing a 3.75" pin to pap pin up ball vs a 4" pin to pap pin down ball but the pin down was actually 5" pin to pap. It is sad to do that to try and make you seem right vs telling the truth."

Beyond shocked you would call out a dead man as a liar.  Safe to say you have differing opinions but to question the truthfulness of arguably one of the pioneers of modern core design makes you lose quite a bit of credibility IMO.

To be clear, the video about the Bigfoot is specific to the Bigfoot and that particular symmetrical core.  When you drill the thumb into one of the four knobs, arms, whatever you want to call them, you remove more mass than you would if you don't drill into one.  That can change the differential dramatically. 
Brian Buckosh explains it pretty well.  Well, I guess he may be lying to us too...   

Because he is dead you give it a pass? Watch the video on YouTube. Bowlers pap is 4 3/4" over and 3/8" up. The pin down has the pin on the center grip line slightly above the center grip. The pin up is well further away then 1/4" or so that they claimed the difference to be.

His own ball reaction video with throwbot shows the minimal or no difference in up vs down with the same pin to pap except when at 600 rpms when the pin down out hooked the pin up. They eventually made the pin down longer then the pin up, before eventually going away from the comparison in later videos.  If it contradicts what was said in seminars im guessing they don't want people to see it.

Mo lived and died on selling people on increasing core numbers and saying the pin down was bad ect ect when the results are not the case. He believed in max everything which typically equals bad ball reaction. Max weight hole size and depth then post weight holes drilling the thumb max size and depth etc. Most of his stuff against pin down layouts in the later seminars were lies. It said it was comparing a 3.75" pin to pap pin up ball vs a 4" pin to pap pin down ball but the pin down was actually 5" pin to pap. It is sad to do that to try and make you seem right vs telling the truth.

Here is a great Radical video for example of a 4.5" pin up vs 4.5" pin down. Notice the big differences in differential and int differential compared to the lack of big difference on the lanes....except for the high rev bowler. The pin up doesnt come close to the strength of the pin down ball in overall hook etc.

I'm not particularly interested in defending Radical, as I'm personally not a fan of their marketing as a whole, and I've never had success with their equipment.  I've followed Mo for over a decade though, and once he was with involved with Radical (technically he was employed by Brunswick and assigned to Radical as a Core Design representative or whatever his title was) I definitely felt like his, passion, care, and commitment noticeably suffered, just in my personal observation and opinion.  I began noticing more mistakes, contradictions, inconsistencies, and the images you provided are a good example.

Having said that, I think it's important to be clear, that what you list as a 'big difference' in Int Diff, is only .005 between the 2 balls.  (.010 vs .015) The Diff is a decent change at .01 between the 2 balls. (.044 vs .054) but 1 boards of hook for a bowler with only 175 revs... That's not nothing.  3 boards of difference on exit board, if you put any value in that figure, is more noticeable, but realistically the ball looks rolled out in the video, so it's a questionable setup to start.  I've complained for years that they're really only showing a single bowler.  It's 4 bowlers with the same tilt, rotation, and rev/speed matched.  Changing the speed/revs linearly doesn't actually show us any difference, but I digress.

For whatever it's worth, Storm equated .012 Diff change, as the difference between a 1" pin buffer, and a 4" pin buffer, for the HyRoad core.  Storm also considers this a "huge" difference, and measured it as 20 feet of difference between the rates the axis of the ball migrates.  Both balls still hit the pocket, but they go through the pins noticeably different to the naked eye.  So Mo is clearly not alone in his opinion on how pin up/ pin down have an effect on ball motion.
The 'bring your spare ball' hyperbole is dumb, I completely agree on that front.

I suppose the reality is that, just because it doesn't matter for most of us low-average rev bowlers, on a house shot, doesn't mean it doesn't matter.  High rev bowler, as you admitted, it's clearly different, which proves the physics aspect.  On a sport shot, I'm better that 20 feet of migration difference really shows up, but I obviously don't have the means to test or prove that theory.

As for the image, it appears to be a typo, as the measurements on the ball show you that it's a 5" pin to pap.  Those are what Mo controls.  I highly doubt he's the one making the slideshows.  The issue with deciphering the images, is that they don't even use layout E or F anymore, as they required balance holes, but the pin position was variable (which is why it says MOD in the image)  In fact, layout B, was also listed with a variable pin to pap on the original intel drill sheet.

Basically, layouts for most of us casuals on house shots, really don't mean much.
But I've experimented with a lot of weird, extreme, and a wide range of layouts, and felt like my success was all over the map.  My most recent experiment, is by far the best ball motion I've ever had.  Maybe it's just the ball, but given my experience, it's really hard for me to disregard layouts.

My intent wasn't to reveal any groundbreaking information, I was genuinely just brainstorming, and this idea of radial symmetry and the Zen core, just was incredibly interesting to me.  Clearly, the results aren't large enough to matter like I thought they perhaps would be, unless, like Radical displayed, the core is designed specifically with intent to exploit that idea to the extreme.

I appreciate you entertaining my curiosity in a civil and productive discussion.  Thank you.